This report provides a framework for companies to design and implement credible climate transition plans aligned with net-zero targets. It outlines governance expectations, capital allocation practices, policy engagement alignment, and disclosure standards needed to ensure climate commitments translate into operational change and measurable emissions reductions. 

This case examines the challenges multinationals face in pursuing B Corp certification, using Danone as an example. It highlights aligning global operations, governance, and stakeholder engagement with rigorous social and environmental standards, and raises the broader question: What is responsible influence on public policy for companies that have committed to sustainability? 

This teaching case by Rajat Panwar of Oregon State University, explores the tensions faced by companies such as Singapore’s Olam, in whether to continue to advocate for farm subsidies that benefit the industry but undermine biodiversity and raise questions about their sustainability commitments. The case challenges students to consider how, even when companies are clear about their interests in nature, taking a public stance is politically sensitive. 

This brief analyzes legal, political, and reputational pressures facing corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives amid rising polarization and litigation risk. It outlines governance considerations, risk exposure, and communication strategies for companies navigating contested regulatory and political landscapes. 

What It Is: An early analysis in Transparency International's 2009 Global Corruption Report, examining the line between legitimate corporate lobbying — an accepted input to democratic decision-making — and lobbying that captures regulations and policy for private benefit. 

Why It Matters: The report backs its argument with striking figures: politically connected firms are estimated to account for nearly 40% of market capitalization in the UK and 80% in Russia; roughly 2,500 lobbying organizations and 15,000 lobbyists compete for influence in Brussels alone; and US state-level lobbying spending averages $200,000 per legislator, with five lobbyists vying for each lawmaker's attention. Outlines the importance of considering Legitimacy of lobbying efforts, and Responsibility not to crowd out other voices." 

How to Use It: Use this chapter's distinction between legitimate lobbying and policy capture as a discussion input when running a Public Affairs Governance Review with Third Side Strategies' Principled Influence Guide — particularly Step Two's policy assessment — to help sharpen the language in your Public Affairs Engagement Policy defining where advocacy ends and undue influence begins.

Recognizing that climate-related risks are complicated, this brief disaggregates climate risks into three categories (planetary, economic, and financial) to then map those risks to which stakeholders are best positioned to address them. The article explains the importance of this disaggregation to facilitate intended outcomes and avoid unintended consequence. 

This briefing is the first in a series that applies effective corporate climate engagement to a particular sector - in this case, transportation. The brief provides five key facts board directors need to know about corporate climate policy engagement in relation to road transport; a snapshot of the current policy and corporate advocacy landscape for road transport and five steps board directors can take to support effective corporate climate policy engagement in the automotive and trucking industries.

Amid rising political backlash, most companies are recalibrating—not abandoning—their ESG and DEI agendas. This piece highlights a shift toward quieter, stakeholder-focused strategies rooted in authenticity, measurable impact, and alignment with business goals. It notes how terms like “ESG” are being replaced with less politicized language, and how scenario planning and coalition-building are helping leaders navigate polarized environments without losing credibility.

As a company’s engagement in social and political issues becomes increasingly fraught, this article lays out decision-making principles companies can use to determine whether and when to engage in social and political issues.

This academic article analyzes how political polarization affects corporate nonmarket strategies—such as lobbying, advocacy, and coalition-building—across different stages of the policy life cycle. It shows how polarization changes the risks and payoffs of engagement, complicating firms’ ability to influence policy without triggering backlash or strategic misalignment. 

This report analyzes how political risk—ranging from regulatory shifts and policy unpredictability to geopolitical tensions—affects corporate valuations, operating costs, supply chains, and long-term investment. It introduces a framework connecting political events to financial consequences, urging companies to integrate political-risk analytics into strategic planning, governance, and ESG-related disclosures to strengthen resilience. 

This report analyzes how political risk—ranging from regulatory shifts and policy unpredictability to geopolitical tensions—affects corporate valuations, operating costs, supply chains, and long-term investment. It introduces a framework connecting political events to financial consequences, urging companies to integrate political-risk analytics into strategic planning, governance, and ESG-related disclosures to strengthen resilience. 

This report explores how geopolitical fragmentation, shifting alliances, and economic realignment are reshaping corporate sustainability strategies. It argues that companies must redesign governance structures, partnerships, and operating models to remain resilient while balancing sustainability commitments with rising political, regulatory, and market uncertainty across regions and sectors. 

What It Is: A 2026 research study led by former Chief Sustainability Officer at Kenvue, with prior CSO roles at Mattel and L'Oréal — produced with Sustainable Brands, examining how the Chief Sustainability Officer role is evolving into a strategic enterprise leadership position spanning risk, financial performance, and value creation. 

Why It Matters: Argues that the CSO mandate is "expanding faster than the systems designed to support it," now touching purpose, stakeholders, regulation, and geopolitics rather than environmental performance alone. Accountability requires CSO's to both invest in critical knowledge and competencies and elevate attention when the role cannot keep pace with expectations.  

How to Use It: Useful for benchmarking whether your own sustainability or CPR function has the internal authority, reporting lines, and cross-functional integration that this expanded mandate requires — worth revisiting once the full findings are available. 

What It Is: An article laying out a structured "nonmarket strategy" framework — analysis, strategy formulation, capacity building, feasibility checks, and implementation — for how companies should engage with regulators, activists, and public opinion alongside their core market strategy. 

Why It Matters: The authors provide detailed cases that show the risks and best practices, that impact a company's social license to operate — arguing that nonmarket engagement isn't a side activity but a core determinant of whether a company's social license to operate holds. 

How to Use It: Use the five-stage framework (analysis, strategy, capacity, feasibility, implementation) as a working checklist when developing or auditing your organization's own nonmarket/public affairs strategy, while also considering safeguards, such as those in our Principled Influence: A Guide to Strengthening Public Affairs Practices in Polarized Environments. 

This report examines the economics of action and inaction on climate, energy and the environment, and finds that failing to limit global warming to below 2°C could reduce cumulative global GDP by 15% to 34% by 2100. Conversely, the analysis suggested that investing 1% to 2% of global GDP in mitigation and adaptation efforts would significantly reduce these economic damages. They conclude that the net cost of inaction—climate change impacts minus the cost of action—is estimated at 11% to 27% of cumulative GDP, underscoring the economic imperative for proactive climate and energy strategies.

This article reexamines Milton Friedman’s shareholder primacy argument, suggesting that stakeholder capitalism can incorporate market discipline and accountability principles without abandoning broader societal obligations. It argues that profit-seeking must operate within competitive markets and legal frameworks that preserve democratic legitimacy and prevent capture.